A Pragmatic Fight for Animal Rights

Despite criticism, we at PETA believe compromises and funny antics are
necessary to the real work of animal protection

In recent years, there has been a controversy swirling in animal rights
circles, as some people such as Victor Schonfeld object to the work of groups
such as PETA, which, while abolitionist and determined to get animals off the
dinner plate and out of the fur farms, circuses and laboratories, have
nevertheless been working with corporations to achieve animal welfare reforms
within their industries. A few outspoken critics of such "half measures" or
"baby steps" have gone so far as to argue against PETA's campaigns for improved
slaughter practices for chickens, better living conditions for hens and larger
cages for animals in laboratories. We find this attitude unhelpful to the goal
of animal liberation.

Not only is it possible to work for an end to animal slavery while
simultaneously supporting incremental change, moving the bar closer to that goal
also seems to us to be an important step. Yes, it is more comfortable for
industry and consumers alike, but short of a bloody revolution of the sort
history has witnessed in other social movements, it is also nearly impossible to
move a society forward in any other way. The vast majority of people, if they
care about animals − and consumer surveys show that they do − support
incremental improvements, even if the increments are far from wholly
satisfactory to the animals, who would rather not be caged and mutilated, hung
upside down and killed, and to the liberationists, who chafe at such slow
progress. It seems obvious that society is more likely to progress in a way that
causes particularly abusive systems to be improved or eliminated before full
animal liberation is achieved.

If society's perspective is that animals should have no rights or interests
at all, then moving from that mentality to complete animal liberation will
require an impossibly enormous shift in viewpoint, no matter how much more
enlightened this generation is than the last when it comes to understanding the
complex behavior and needs of all the various species from dog to duck.
However, once society gets the picture provided by ethologists and others who
study animals in nature and captivity, the interests not only of great apes and
whales but also of the "humbler" species we have long taken for granted and
whose fundamental interests have been totally disregarded, including chickens,
pigs and other animals, will be understood and begin to be respected. That is
when massive changes will come about in what we eat and wear and how we test
chemicals. Not to change would be an indictment of our humanity, our societal
values, ourselves. Now that some of the world's largest corporations are saying,
"Yes, we understand that animals can suffer, and we see that this is a real
concern," the discussion has begun in earnest.

For those who decry gradualism, the practical philosopher Peter Singer would
ask, "Would you prefer to live in the horror you're in, bred to grow seven times
more quickly than natural so that your bones splinter and your organs collapse,
or would you prefer to be able to live without chronic pain? Would you prefer to
live your life crammed into a small cage, unable to lift your wings, build a
nest, or do almost anything else that you would like to do, or would you prefer
to, at the very least, be able to walk? Would you prefer to be hung upside-down
by your feet and then scalded to death or lose consciousness when the crate you
are in passes through a controlled atmosphere stunner?" The answers should be
clear.

Campaigns against the practices of fast-food chains and the campaign to ban
battery cages, which have been heavily supported by the hard work of tens of
thousands of grassroots activists, have improved the living and dying conditions
of millions of animals. As the industries change and evolve, the improvements
will apply to billions of animals every year. At PETA, we completely understand
the appeal of battle cries such as "Not bigger cages − empty cages!" But giving
a little comfort and stimulation for animals who will be in those cages their
whole lives is worth fighting for, even as we demand those empty cages. Not only
is it the best thing for the animals in the cages, it's also the best thing for
animal liberation. It's a stepping stone on the road to animal liberation.

As for the sexy women in our ads, the silly costumes, the street tableaux and
the tofu sandwich give-aways, in a world where people want to smile, can't
resist looking at an attractive image and are up for a free meal, if such
harmless antics will allow one individual to reconsider their own role in
exploiting animals, how can it be faulted? Yes, PETA could restrict its
activities to scientific work, but how often do you read of that in the papers?
It could just hand out lengthy tracts about ethics, but how many people would
stop and take one, let alone read it? Any peaceful action that opens eyes,
hearts and minds should be commended, not condemned. Victor Schonfeld's film is
a wonderful milestone and provides an excellent education, but there must be
constant incremental daily efforts − not just big hurrahs − or we will never
succeed. Too many lives depend on that success for us to be worried about how
grand and perfect we are on the way to saving them.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.